When the Republican Study Committee, an influential group of Republicans within the House of Representatives, released and then retracted a controversial memo on copyright reform in November, its author declined to talk to us on the record. A month later, when news of his firing over the memo broke, Derek Khanna stuck to his "no comment" line. At the time, he was still officially on the RSC's payroll until the end of the 112th Congress.

But when the 113th Congress began at noon on Thursday, Khanna became a free agent. We reached Khanna by phone on Thursday afternoon to discuss the memo, his departure from the RSC, and the prospects for copyright reform in the coming years.

Khanna's memo advocated several common-sense reforms to the copyright system, including reducing the term of copyright protection and reining in "statutory damages" that can be as high as $150,000 per infringement.

RSC executive director Paul Teller said he spiked the memo because it had been published "without adequate review." But Khanna says his memo went through exactly the same review process as other RSC publications. "There was nothing particularly unusual about this memo," he told us.

For a typical RSC memo, "a staffer will write it up, and then we'll go through the process to revise it accordingly and receive the final sign-off." When an RSC staffer is preparing a memo, he is "not allowed to do peer review or show it outside the organization." But Khanna told us that his memo had "input from several of our staff members, when typically it only requires the approval of one staff member."

Khanna said he hoped his memo would start a conversation about copyright reform and perhaps draw the attention of the tech community. But the "level of backlash it received from the content industry" took him by surprise.

Khanna says he didn't personally hear from any members of Congress upset about the memo, and he refused to comment on the exact circumstances of his departure. TheWashington Examiner's Tim Carney reported Khanna was let go under pressure from Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), whose district in the suburbs of Nashville gives her close ties to the recording industry.

Support from pundits but not politicians

Khanna told us the memo received broad support from commentators on the political right. In TheNew York Times, conservative columnist David Brooks praised Khanna's memo, which Brooks said "differed from the usual lobbyist-driven position" on copyright.

"The Republican establishment has traditionally gone along with whatever big business asked for on copyright," one blogger at the influential conservative blog Redstate.com wrote in defense of Khanna's memo. Jordan Bloom at TheAmerican Conservativewrote Khanna's position provided Republicans with an opportunity for "winning millennials and screwing Hollywood."

But so far, no Republican members of Congress have endorsed Khanna's memo or the policy ideas he put forward. Khanna said he's optimistic that will happen in the coming months. "Creating policy is sometimes a slow process," Khanna told us. (And Congress certainly had a lot on its plate over the last two months.) Khanna argued that with a new Congress beginning it was "time for an enterprising member to take up [copyright reform] in a fashion that he feels is appropriate and run with it."

Khanna believes there's a broad constituency for copyright reform. He has fond memories of the January 2012 Internet protests against the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act. At the time, he was on the staff of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA). Brown was one of sixteen Republican Senators who announced their opposition to PIPA on the day of the historic protests against the legislation.

"The feedback was absolutely deafening," Khanna said of e-mails and phone calls from constituents opposing the legislation. "It was unlike anything I had ever seen, and most congressional staffers I worked with had seen." He said that to this day, members of Congress ask "is this the next SOPA?" when considering Internet-related legislation.

"You work for the American people"

Khanna's firing generated a lot of press coverage, but so far it hasn't netted him a new job. "Today is my last day working @RepublicanStudy Committee," he tweeted on Thursday. "To Congressman interested in smart tech policy—call me maybe?"

In the short term, Khanna has been offered a number of opportunities to further expound on his copyright reform views. He said he's in the process of talking to potential employers, but right now he's out of a job.

Khanna expressed no regrets and he urged other Hill staffers not to be intimidated.

"I encourage Hill staffers to bring forth new ideas. Don't be discouraged by the potential consequences," Khanna told us. "You work for the American people. It's your job, your obligation to be challenging existing paradigms and put forward novel solutions to existing problems."

We look forward to seeing what novel solutions Khanna comes up with in the months and years ahead.

Promoted Comments

@Still_Learning_DOS: I'm going to pick on you specifically since you touted being a photographer and high school-related pictures being taken. When my mother died seven years ago, we wanted to use her high school senior picture as one of the pictures for her wake (as my dad always liked that shot of her). Her high school senior picture was taken by her uncle, who was a professional photographer. Unfortunately, he had the audacity to die before my mom (no one could ever have guessed that would happen). So, 38 years after he had taken her picture, we take a wallet-sized version of it in to Wal-Mart or wherever to see if they could enlarge it. Because he had his studio's watermark on it, they'd not do it without his written consent. The dead guy. We couldn't track him down, oddly enough, to do that. We asked if tracking down his daughter (my mother's cousin) and getting her written consent would work. Nope. The people said they couldn't be sure it was a legitimate tie.

So, we held my mother's wake without one of my father's favorite pictures of her. It may seem a trivial thing--and indeed it is in the grand scheme of life. However, this particular experience left me with nothing but a strong vitriol against people who scream about their works being stolen and how copyright needs to oppress all us "uncreative" (note that I hold a B.F.A. in Graphic Design) types so that you can have your artsy living.

I'm not opposed to copyright. I think it's good. For, say, 10 years--at which time your works should have earned you more than enough money to recoup whatever time you put into creating them (and for you, you get steady work each year from high school students at prom time and likely senior pictures for yearbooks, I'll wager. So forgive me if I'm skeptical that you're having to prostitute yourself out on street corners eleven months of the year trying to get people to let you take pictures so you can make a living). After that--and sure as hell after death--nothing any longer. If you can't keep creating to keep new copyrights in term for yourself, then you're a failure as an artist and not worth the public's forced dollars.

183 Reader Comments

I don't care what party you represent. If someone can bring some sense to copyright policy and make it so that, at the very least, they go back to being about protecting reasonable rights instead of being used/viewed as a fresh new revenue stream for profits via lawsuits, I can get behind that.

I don't care what party you represent. If someone can bring some sense to copyright policy and make it so that, at the very least, they go back to being about protecting reasonable rights instead of being used/viewed as a fresh new revenue stream for profits via lawsuits, I can get behind that.

The problem is that neither party is interested in bringing copyright reform back to 'reasonable' status, with the Republicans in bed with big business and the entertainment industry employing huge amounts of people in their Democratic strongholds.

Wow, talk about a breath of fresh air.. this is the first time in recent (and not so recent) memory that someone even remotely related to a politician or political party acknowledged that the whole point of government is serve the public. It's unfortunate that he was only a staffer and he has been fired for his radical/extremist notions of doing what's best for everyone, but hey, at least there are people out there talking about "by the people, for the people".

Now, if only we can fire the politicians that are actually selling themselves out to Hollywood instead of the staffers who point out this might not be the best for the American people, then we'd REALLY be on a roll!

To nitpick: If he was hired for the 112th Congress, and then was not hired for the 113th Congress, he wasn't fired, his contract ended. There is a huge difference between a contract ending and getting fired. You should clarify which this was, and if it was the former, the article title is probably misleading.

/nitpick

I hope this guy does get work somewhere is Washington again though, nice to see someone actually think about the issues and try to influence those around him or herself.

I don't know who (not) reviewed what and who retracted the memo with what backlash, but I know that Mr. Khanna released a very sensible memo from a high U. S. office. For that, he has my undying gratitude and hope that once in the future, we might live in a more sane society, also thanks to him.

Bit off topic, forgive me. The article pic is a glaringly obvious photoshop. Normally I'd continue reading the article but the pic doesn't have an attribute so it kinda broke the article as curiosity cropped up. Nothing turns up similar in Google Images so maybe it's an in house pic? Aurich maybe? Sorry, back to article....

We didn't alter the photo. What makes you think it's a photoshop picture?

As a photographer who's prom photos were blatantly copied by a newspaper who had a staffer on the prom committee (They stuffed flyers into my prom photos without my knowledge or permission. It can to light when a few of the kids came to me to complain that the copies on plain paper were not the same quality as mine on photo paper.) I support strong copywrite laws. When Kmart copied 1,000's photos for customers, they were in effect stealling from the photographers.

Please define "common sense" laws while YOUR work is being stolen.

And these photos need copyright until 75 years after your death for why, exactly? How is that in any way "common sense"?

The entire point of the memo being discussed is that copyright law has swung so far away from the original intent that "common sense" is nowhere to be found. Did you even DO the required reading for this assignment?

If he was hired for the 112th Congress, and then was not hired for the 113th Congress, he wasn't fired, his contract ended. There is a huge difference between a contract ending and getting fired. You should clarify which this was, and if it was the former, the article title is probably misleading.

I disagree. The difference between being fired and his contract just not being reviewed is a matter of intent. If Scalise just happened to have his own staffer he preferred to Khanna, then you could describe that as his contract simply not being renewed. But Tim Carney has reported (and my sources agree) that the decision not to re-hire him was specifically due to his authorship of the memo. If not for that factor, it's likely that he would have been kept on for the new Congress. So I think "firing" is an accurate description.

Contact your congressional representative!! I contacted mine shortly after it was made clear Khanna was being let go. Make it clear you don't support the political crap being pulled by the media companies with respect to copyright.

Let them know that you voting for them in the future is on the line....

Copyright is well past ridiculous. Copyright exists to encourage creation of works that contribute to the culture. We now have copyrights that are being defended by the children (and even grandchildren!!) of the content creators. THAT WAS NOT THE REASON BEHIND COPYRIGHT!!!

We are living in a world where copyright has become a nightmare that is out of control. Khanna's paper was a breath of fresh air. The backlash from the RIAA and MPAA stormtroopers was insanely ridiculous.

Be sure your rep knows that you hate the MPAA and RIAA with the searing passion of a thousand suns and this resistance to their copyright overreach is not "fabricated by silicon valley."

'Firing' is a harsh term. Not sure if Grimmash is 100% correct since I don't know if Khanna signed an employment contract - maybe they're used in Congress, but they're extremely rare elsewhere. Regardless, when an elected office changes hands, it's pretty common for them to let go of the existing staff and bring in their own. That's not to say the old staffers weren't good at their jobs, it's just politics.

It wouldn't be a story, except for the whole burying-a-report-that-many-people-like-but-big-business-doesn't thing. And it's a good story, since before this, Khanna wasn't really able to contradict the party statement that the memo was buried due to 'inadequate review' - which sounded flimsy, that we kinda had to accept in the absence of any contradictory statement.

As a photographer who's prom photos were blatantly copied by a newspaper who had a staffer on the prom committee (They stuffed flyers into my prom photos without my knowledge or permission. It can to light when a few of the kids came to me to complain that the copies on plain paper were not the same quality as mine on photo paper.) I support strong copywrite laws. When Kmart copied 1,000's photos for customers, they were in effect stealling from the photographers.

Please define "common sense" laws while YOUR work is being stolen.

There's a difference between strong copyright (which I don't think anyone disagrees with) and OTT OMG my great grand children are going to be paying off this fine, and even then it still won't be in the public domain copyright.

IMO if someone takes a photo, that photo should be theirs for as long as they live (originators rights). If they sell the rights on, or otherwise give up the copyright to another entity, I think that copyright should last for 10 years from that date (secondary rights), and secondary rights must be recorded in an official register.

If he was hired for the 112th Congress, and then was not hired for the 113th Congress, he wasn't fired, his contract ended. There is a huge difference between a contract ending and getting fired. You should clarify which this was, and if it was the former, the article title is probably misleading.

I disagree. The difference between being fired and his contract just not being reviewed is a matter of intent. If Scalise just happened to have his own staffer he preferred to Khanna, then you could describe that as his contract simply not being renewed. But Tim Carney has reported (and my sources agree) that the decision not to re-hire him was specifically due to his authorship of the memo. If not for that factor, it's likely that he would have been kept on for the new Congress. So I think "firing" is an accurate description.

I can understand that take on it, although I still am on the fence regarding the hiring/firing thing. Regardless of opinion, thanks for the clarification!

Khanna said he hoped his memo would start a conversation about copyright reform and perhaps draw the attention of the tech community. But the "level of backlash it received from the content industry" took him by surprise.

Really? How can you not expect a deafening roar from the content industry? They've worked for decades to mold the law to work for them and against the public good -- of course they're going to scream bloody murder.

I'm the odd ball out I'm sure, but that title threw me off. I thought he was fired for talking about the memo to Ars, not that he was takling to ars about being fired for the memo.

Republican staffer fired for copyright memo talks to Ars or

Republican staffer, fired for copyright memo, talks to Ars

On the topic of the article, I give him kudos for trying to change the mind set from within. It's not easy to change minds that are set on a certain topic rather than work for organizations that accept your point of view already.

As someone who works with and on open source software, I don't give a shit about your _need_ for copyright.

There are literally millions of people working in the software industry who give their copyrightable materials away. Yet they manage to make a living and pay the bills without the hyper-draconian copyright rules that you can't seem to be able to live without.

Frankly, it think IT types who basically are either "work for hire" and never own their copyrights, or write open-soruce and give it all away, are sick to death of all you "artsy" bastards bitching about how you'll starve to death if copyright isn't life+70 years (and I have no idea how you'll be "starving" 70 years after you die......).

As a photographer who's prom photos were blatantly copied by a newspaper who had a staffer on the prom committee (They stuffed flyers into my prom photos without my knowledge or permission. It can to light when a few of the kids came to me to complain that the copies on plain paper were not the same quality as mine on photo paper.) I support strong copywrite laws. When Kmart copied 1,000's photos for customers, they were in effect stealling from the photographers.

Please define "common sense" laws while YOUR work is being stolen.

I also do photo and video work and I don't think anyone was arguing against *any* copyright. I think it is important that your works can be copyrighted and that you have recourse against exactly the kind of thing you experienced.

What most of us here are arguing for is a reform of copyright policy that has overreached its original intent. The original point of copyright was to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"..."by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". The intent was to make sure you can get paid for your work and that others can't copy it and sell it for profit without agreeing to some sort of licensing terms. The flip side of that is to allow created works to enter the public domain after such time as the creator has made use of them for their commercial ends. This ensures that the general progression of content creation is strengthened as works are made available for future creators to build upon.

Should you be able to profit from your photos without the risk of that newspaper diluting the value of your work? Certainly. That's a proper use of copyright. The point of modern copyright reform is that there is no need to retain copyright for decades after your death under penalty of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

Bit off topic, forgive me. The article pic is a glaringly obvious photoshop. Normally I'd continue reading the article but the pic doesn't have an attribute so it kinda broke the article as curiosity cropped up. Nothing turns up similar in Google Images so maybe it's an in house pic? Aurich maybe? Sorry, back to article....

We didn't alter the photo. What makes you think it's a photoshop picture?

Thanks for the reply Tim! I wasn't trying to grief the article contrary to the number of downvotes it's generated. On of the things I enjoy about the articles here at Ars is the artwork or article pics that sometimes accompany the headlines. That's what got me distracted and a bit off topic.

I'm not a professional photographer so I could be completely off the mark but it seemed the shadows on the two individuals seemed to be coming from different directions when one looks at their necks. Also, the guy on the right seems to have a strong fill flash going on while the staffer on the right has a more obvious face shadow. I was going to look up the source of the photo but one wasn't attribitued below the photo, which I thought odd too as normally all photos are sourced. I grabbed the image and dragged it to another tab in which I had Google Images open and dropped it in to search for other visually similar images. Normally if it's a stock image plenty of sources will crop up, but Google came back saying this image was unique which piqued my interest a bit more. It make me think it might have been somthing put together in house but I was unsure, as no photo attributions were in the article.

I guessing it's just a slow day at work or some ADHD is kicking in. Either way, I didn't mean to imply i was griefing or anything, just genuinely curious.

As a photographer who's prom photos were blatantly copied by a newspaper who had a staffer on the prom committee (They stuffed flyers into my prom photos without my knowledge or permission. It can to light when a few of the kids came to me to complain that the copies on plain paper were not the same quality as mine on photo paper.) I support strong copywrite laws. When Kmart copied 1,000's photos for customers, they were in effect stealling from the photographers.

Please define "common sense" laws while YOUR work is being stolen.

There's a difference between strong copyright (which I don't think anyone disagrees with) and OTT OMG my great grand children are going to be paying off this fine, and even then it still won't be in the public domain copyright.

Why should your IP be different from physical property that your great great grand children can profit from? We don't take peoples houses or physical plants away from them after say 75 years or 14 years or fill in the number.

Quote:

IMO if someone takes a photo, that photo should be theirs for as long as they live (originators rights). If they sell the rights on, or otherwise give up the copyright to another entity, I think that copyright should last for 10 years from that date (secondary rights), and secondary rights must be recorded in an official register.

Feel the same way about someones car? After lets say they die or they sell it the first time after 10 years that car belongs to the public and everyone gets to use it.

Physical property != Intellectual property. I would be fine with everyone being able to copy the design of a car you designed after a short term, and I'd be fine with people being able to copy your house and plants after a short term.

As a photographer who's prom photos were blatantly copied by a newspaper who had a staffer on the prom committee (They stuffed flyers into my prom photos without my knowledge or permission. It can to light when a few of the kids came to me to complain that the copies on plain paper were not the same quality as mine on photo paper.) I support strong copywrite laws. When Kmart copied 1,000's photos for customers, they were in effect stealling from the photographers.

Please define "common sense" laws while YOUR work is being stolen.

There's a difference between strong copyright (which I don't think anyone disagrees with) and OTT OMG my great grand children are going to be paying off this fine, and even then it still won't be in the public domain copyright.

Why should your IP be different from physical property that your great great grand children can profit from? We don't take peoples houses or physical plants away from them after say 75 years or 14 years or fill in the number.

Intellectual Property does not equal Physical Property. The laws of supply and demand dictate this in very simple terms. Any physical object has a limited supply. An idea has an unlimited supply, if I copy your idea, you still have your idea and in fact have lost nothing.

Now society(via the government) has decided that ideas have value and passed laws to protect them. They have no inherent value (because the supply is unlimited, demand does matter value will be zero) but society wants people to create new ideas, so we have artificial protection for those ideas.

Now we are discussing the terms of those artificial protections. When does protecting those ideas do greater harm to society than not protecting them?

Quote:

IMO if someone takes a photo, that photo should be theirs for as long as they live (originators rights). If they sell the rights on, or otherwise give up the copyright to another entity, I think that copyright should last for 10 years from that date (secondary rights), and secondary rights must be recorded in an official register.

Feel the same way about someones car? After lets say they die or they sell it the first time after 10 years that car belongs to the public and everyone gets to use it.

Intellectual Property does not equal Physical Property. The laws of supply and demand dictate this in very simple terms. Any physical object has a limited supply. An idea has an unlimited supply, if I copy your idea, you still have your idea and in fact have lost nothing.

Now society(via the government) has decided that ideas have value and passed laws to protect them. They have no inherent value (because the supply is unlimited, demand does matter and value will be zero) but society wants people to create new ideas, so we have artificial protection for those ideas.

Now we are discussing the terms of those artificial protections. When does protecting those ideas do greater harm to society than not protecting them?

I suspect that the trial lawyers may be another group that wants perpetual copyright.

@Still_Learning_DOS

Copyright worked fairly well when setting up to copy things was expensive. Infringers had expensive, relatively fixed assets which could be seized. Copyright was a civil matter, not criminal.

Now that making electronic copies is easy, the economics have changed. The number of possible infringers has skyrocketed, and the cost of suing each one has not fallen. That's why that piracy notice on your DVDs says it's a criminal offense. Content producers want to offload enforcement expenses on the general public.

I say it's time for a new business model, to match the new economics. It's your bread and butter we're talking about. If you want to continue eating, you need to adapt to reality.

As a photographer who's prom photos were blatantly copied by a newspaper who had a staffer on the prom committee (They stuffed flyers into my prom photos without my knowledge or permission. It can to light when a few of the kids came to me to complain that the copies on plain paper were not the same quality as mine on photo paper.) I support strong copywrite laws. When Kmart copied 1,000's photos for customers, they were in effect stealling from the photographers.

Please define "common sense" laws while YOUR work is being stolen.

There's a difference between strong copyright (which I don't think anyone disagrees with) and OTT OMG my great grand children are going to be paying off this fine, and even then it still won't be in the public domain copyright.

Why should your IP be different from physical property that your great great grand children can profit from? We don't take peoples houses or physical plants away from them after say 75 years or 14 years or fill in the number.

Quote:

IMO if someone takes a photo, that photo should be theirs for as long as they live (originators rights). If they sell the rights on, or otherwise give up the copyright to another entity, I think that copyright should last for 10 years from that date (secondary rights), and secondary rights must be recorded in an official register.

Feel the same way about someones car? After lets say they die or they sell it the first time after 10 years that car belongs to the public and everyone gets to use it.

This is really something the Dems should be leading on. That said, I'm just glad SOMEONE is talking about it. Copyright is severely broken, and there is much work to be done.

Sadly, because of their very close ties to the content industries and Hollywood, Democrats are never going to be the ones leading the charge on Copyright reform.

True ! Also was this that I read about Khanna, "level of backlash it received from the content industry" took him by surprise.If Khanna was really bright he would of realized just what would happen.It was obvious to all of us.In Politics it is Money & Power First............The people are Second not first.

Why should your IP be different from physical property that your great great grand children can profit from? We don't take peoples houses or physical plants away from them after say 75 years or 14 years or fill in the number.

This is what is wrong. IP is not physical property. Content industry has been brainwashing anyone who would fall for the line that equates IP with physical property. As a result, we have this draconian IP laws that primarly benefit the content industry rather than the content creators or the content consumers.

Why should your IP be different from physical property that your great great grand children can profit from? We don't take peoples houses or physical plants away from them after say 75 years or 14 years or fill in the number.

Well, If I rent out my property on a monthly basis, I then get taxed on the income. However I can only ever rent it out to one entity at a time. Also there are significant costs in terms of manpower, land, and materials if I ever want to duplicate said house. As for plants, each plant that's sold is one less plant that I have, therefore I have to keep creating new plants in order to sell them, as will my descendants if they want to profit from them. Equally, unless I've genetically engineered them, there's nothing stopping anyone from buying a few of my plants and then starting to grow their own.

jimisawesome wrote:

Feel the same way about someones car? After lets say they die or they sell it the first time after 10 years that car belongs to the public and everyone gets to use it.

Fair enough; you create a car that can be used by more than 1 person going to different destinations at the same time to arrive at the same time, and I'll concede that you're right.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.